It’s normally against my policy to keep replying to people after a day has passed, but…
Holodomor
was called “the soviet famine” until literal Nazi propagandists relabeled it with the help of American yellow journalists and photos from before the USSR was founded
Great Famine
despite the famine happening, life spans under Mao doubled compared to the Republic of China.
These two events were also, notably, the last famines to occur in those countries that were not intentionally caused by another country invading. Before the Soviets, the Caucasus experienced a famine about once per decade - and before Mao, China experienced a famine somewhere in its borders every single year. Famines occurred at the beginning of the Communist period, and it was Communist policies that brought the famines to an end. Meanwhile there are quite a few capitalist regimes on this Earth that still struggle with food security far more than the communist ones do.
The kulaks and landlords deserved it, and most of them weren’t killed anyway just the saboteurs and capitalist/nazi collaborators.
Book Burnings
The Nazis burned science textbooks they didn’t like, the Soviets banned antisemitic authors who spread conspiracy theories and disinformation. It’s not the same thing.
Cultural Revolution
Actually the modern CPC’s position is that the Cultural Revolution was a mistake, but what makes China’s system so remarkable is precisely the fact that it’s capable of owning its own mistakes and putting a stop to them. Meanwhile in America we’ve probably killed and jailed more people than the Red Guards did and there’s no end in sight to the policies behind it - but instead of “Cultural Revolution” or “Great Purge” we call it “The War on Drugs”.
Wow, you are full of nonsense. If you have to resort to comparing someone to the Nazis to show they’re not too bad, you’re already up shit creek without a paddle.
Funny, you mention Nazis multiple times in your apologia of Soviet democide, but what you fail to mention is that, rather than murdering “Nazi collaborators” during the de-kulakization period, Soviet leaders were not opposed to Nazism at any point until 1941, when the Nazi betrayed their non-aggression pact and invaded the USSR. Prior to that, they had been on rather cordial terms, dividing up their respective “spheres of influence” (ie deciding who got to raid which countries). The partition, invasion, and occupation of Poland by Nazis and Soviets is a perfect example of this, but there are many others.
No, the Kulaks did not deserve it, you filthy chekist. No more than the US middle class deserves to be brutally murdered. Or US farmers deserve to be brutally murdered (since they are land rich and cash poor). Nobody deserved that. That was not justice, that was an out of control murderous mob. Frequently the locals didn’t even support the murdering of their local landlords and farmers, but outsiders roaming the countryside pressured them to anyways. When even the outsiders wouldn’t murder enough people, the secret police took over and did a fantastic job committing democide.
The Soviets burned a lot more than antisemetic books. You seriously think they killed capitalists, but left the pro-capitalism books intact? That doesn’t even make sense. The USSR burned loads of books, started with “decadent” western authors, but quickly spreading to anyone critical of the regime. Funnily enough, one of the first people to organize book burnings in Soviet libraries later found his own writing was include in the list of works to be destroyed.
This isn’t a Gish gallop. You were welcome to respond with actual examples of the “incredible successes” of the communist countries. But instead you are godwining the thread, and bringing up the war on drugs, which is a wattabooutism - a deflection technique designed to derail the argument. I don’t consider the war on drugs to be an incredible success, so I’m not really sure how it’s relevant.
Soviet leaders were not opposed to Nazism at any point until 1941
While the British were pushing appeasement, Stalin was trying to form a multi-nation anti-Nazi pact. If the Brits and French had joined it, World War 2 either would have been averted, or it would have been much, much shorter as a million Soviet soldiers would have reinforced the Polish-German border and they would have fought together instead of wasting resources fighting against each other.
The fact that so many western historians get so hung up on the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact when it was one of the last in a long line of treaties signed by non-fascist government with the Nazis is a form of soft revisionism. They want you to think that there’s a difference between our good liberal diplomacy, and their evil communist backroom deals.
No, the Kulaks did not deserve it, you filthy chekist. No more than the US middle class deserves to be brutally murdered.
Yes they did, and if a mob of the third world’s poor rose up and killed middle class Americans (self included) we would very much deserve it too. My recognition of this simple reality is why I’m a communist, and your denial of it is why you cling so tightly to liberalism.
The Soviets burned a lot more than antisemetic books. You seriously think they killed capitalists, but left the pro-capitalism books intact?
So in addition to burning antisemitic books, they also burned reactionary psuedoscientific nonsense produced by the previous regime. Why is this a bad thing, again?
This isn’t a Gish gallop.
Your previous post was a glib list of anticommunist slanders with no analysis or explanation, hoping to overwhelm my own articulated points with a bunch of nonsense. That’s a gish gallop.
You were welcome to respond with actual examples of the “incredible successes” of the communist countries. But instead you are godwining the thread
Did you read my comment? I expounded upon the Communist countries’ tremendous success in ending the cycles of famine that had long plagued their regions, and further commended China for virtually eliminating all hunger within its borders, a feat unmatched by any capitalist country. Then I talked about how Communist countries, when they’re in the midst of a bad policy or major mistake, are more capable of pulling out, cutting their losses and making amends than Capitalist countries are - I cited the examples of The Great Purge, which was ended after less than a year and the overwhelming majority of those arrested granted amnesty, and the Cultural Revolution, which was ended after Mao’s death and is reflected on by the modern CPC as a mistake that they shouldn’t repeat.
I contrasted these two socialist examples of governments changing course against the Capitalist example of the War on Drugs, which has also killed and imprisoned a tremendous number of people for political reasons, and which has been known to be a practical failure at all of its stated goals for decades, but which continues nonetheless because it generates billions of dollars in profit for private companies that arm and train police. This is not a whataboutism, this is a comparison - truly the worst thing to happen to liberals in the last few years was John Oliver teaching you morons words like “whataboutism” which you have gone on to totally misunderstand and misuse.
okay. last time I promise. you’re clearly not reading my comments anyway so I’m gonna stop responding now.
The reason I didn’t take your examples of “Communist countries tremendous success” seriously is because you were comparing apples to oranges. Seriously, comparing starvation to food insecurity is ludicrous. It is possible to actually compare deaths from starvation per 100,000 people, but that’s not what you did. Because to do that, you’d have to A) rely on something other than propaganda and B) Recognize that China hasn’t entirely eliminated hunger, much less deaths from starvation. Although they have made great progress in reducing the numbers since their series of famines.
You also ignored that the Soviet Union didn’t experience famine because they relied on foreign aid - food aid - for a number of years. So that helped keep their people fed: Food given freely by capitalist pigs who deserve to be murdered for their mere existence in a more successful economy.
As for the great purge, it was followed by years of lesser purges.
The idea that the west does not change courses or look at past programs as a mistake is obviously quite invalid, so there was no point in even mentioning it. But since you cling to that idea, great. Obviously we’ve changed our minds on some things, as the Trail of Tears is now seen as wrong, as is the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Slavery and Jim Crow fall into those categories as well. The War on Drugs is also seen as a failure, despite the fact that it totters on for now.
I don’t watch John Oliver, moron. There is no nuance in this discussion because you are clearly incapable of it.
You are right about one thing: My horror over the deaths caused by communism, including the killing of kulaks, is why I am not a communist. Your gleeful appreciation of the righteousness of democide under communism doesn’t make you a communist. It makes you deeply disturbed individual who is incapable of empathy. It likely points to sociopathy, or some other element of the dark triad, with the political beliefs adopted as a fig leaf to cover your antisocial tendencies.
It’s normally against my policy to keep replying to people after a day has passed, but…
was called “the soviet famine” until literal Nazi propagandists relabeled it with the help of American yellow journalists and photos from before the USSR was founded
despite the famine happening, life spans under Mao doubled compared to the Republic of China.
These two events were also, notably, the last famines to occur in those countries that were not intentionally caused by another country invading. Before the Soviets, the Caucasus experienced a famine about once per decade - and before Mao, China experienced a famine somewhere in its borders every single year. Famines occurred at the beginning of the Communist period, and it was Communist policies that brought the famines to an end. Meanwhile there are quite a few capitalist regimes on this Earth that still struggle with food security far more than the communist ones do.
One of them is the United States. In 2010, 19% of Americans had trouble affording food compared to only 6% of Chinese people. Today China’s food insecure population is virtually zero thanks to the program of eradicating extreme poverty, which no western or capitalist country would ever implement for their own.
and to address the rest of your gish gallop
The kulaks and landlords deserved it, and most of them weren’t killed anyway just the saboteurs and capitalist/nazi collaborators.
The Nazis burned science textbooks they didn’t like, the Soviets banned antisemitic authors who spread conspiracy theories and disinformation. It’s not the same thing.
Actually the modern CPC’s position is that the Cultural Revolution was a mistake, but what makes China’s system so remarkable is precisely the fact that it’s capable of owning its own mistakes and putting a stop to them. Meanwhile in America we’ve probably killed and jailed more people than the Red Guards did and there’s no end in sight to the policies behind it - but instead of “Cultural Revolution” or “Great Purge” we call it “The War on Drugs”.
Wow, you are full of nonsense. If you have to resort to comparing someone to the Nazis to show they’re not too bad, you’re already up shit creek without a paddle.
Funny, you mention Nazis multiple times in your apologia of Soviet democide, but what you fail to mention is that, rather than murdering “Nazi collaborators” during the de-kulakization period, Soviet leaders were not opposed to Nazism at any point until 1941, when the Nazi betrayed their non-aggression pact and invaded the USSR. Prior to that, they had been on rather cordial terms, dividing up their respective “spheres of influence” (ie deciding who got to raid which countries). The partition, invasion, and occupation of Poland by Nazis and Soviets is a perfect example of this, but there are many others.
No, the Kulaks did not deserve it, you filthy chekist. No more than the US middle class deserves to be brutally murdered. Or US farmers deserve to be brutally murdered (since they are land rich and cash poor). Nobody deserved that. That was not justice, that was an out of control murderous mob. Frequently the locals didn’t even support the murdering of their local landlords and farmers, but outsiders roaming the countryside pressured them to anyways. When even the outsiders wouldn’t murder enough people, the secret police took over and did a fantastic job committing democide.
The Soviets burned a lot more than antisemetic books. You seriously think they killed capitalists, but left the pro-capitalism books intact? That doesn’t even make sense. The USSR burned loads of books, started with “decadent” western authors, but quickly spreading to anyone critical of the regime. Funnily enough, one of the first people to organize book burnings in Soviet libraries later found his own writing was include in the list of works to be destroyed.
This isn’t a Gish gallop. You were welcome to respond with actual examples of the “incredible successes” of the communist countries. But instead you are godwining the thread, and bringing up the war on drugs, which is a wattabooutism - a deflection technique designed to derail the argument. I don’t consider the war on drugs to be an incredible success, so I’m not really sure how it’s relevant.
While the British were pushing appeasement, Stalin was trying to form a multi-nation anti-Nazi pact. If the Brits and French had joined it, World War 2 either would have been averted, or it would have been much, much shorter as a million Soviet soldiers would have reinforced the Polish-German border and they would have fought together instead of wasting resources fighting against each other.
The fact that so many western historians get so hung up on the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact when it was one of the last in a long line of treaties signed by non-fascist government with the Nazis is a form of soft revisionism. They want you to think that there’s a difference between our good liberal diplomacy, and their evil communist backroom deals.
Yes they did, and if a mob of the third world’s poor rose up and killed middle class Americans (self included) we would very much deserve it too. My recognition of this simple reality is why I’m a communist, and your denial of it is why you cling so tightly to liberalism.
So in addition to burning antisemitic books, they also burned reactionary psuedoscientific nonsense produced by the previous regime. Why is this a bad thing, again?
Your previous post was a glib list of anticommunist slanders with no analysis or explanation, hoping to overwhelm my own articulated points with a bunch of nonsense. That’s a gish gallop.
Did you read my comment? I expounded upon the Communist countries’ tremendous success in ending the cycles of famine that had long plagued their regions, and further commended China for virtually eliminating all hunger within its borders, a feat unmatched by any capitalist country. Then I talked about how Communist countries, when they’re in the midst of a bad policy or major mistake, are more capable of pulling out, cutting their losses and making amends than Capitalist countries are - I cited the examples of The Great Purge, which was ended after less than a year and the overwhelming majority of those arrested granted amnesty, and the Cultural Revolution, which was ended after Mao’s death and is reflected on by the modern CPC as a mistake that they shouldn’t repeat.
I contrasted these two socialist examples of governments changing course against the Capitalist example of the War on Drugs, which has also killed and imprisoned a tremendous number of people for political reasons, and which has been known to be a practical failure at all of its stated goals for decades, but which continues nonetheless because it generates billions of dollars in profit for private companies that arm and train police. This is not a whataboutism, this is a comparison - truly the worst thing to happen to liberals in the last few years was John Oliver teaching you morons words like “whataboutism” which you have gone on to totally misunderstand and misuse.
okay. last time I promise. you’re clearly not reading my comments anyway so I’m gonna stop responding now.
The reason I didn’t take your examples of “Communist countries tremendous success” seriously is because you were comparing apples to oranges. Seriously, comparing starvation to food insecurity is ludicrous. It is possible to actually compare deaths from starvation per 100,000 people, but that’s not what you did. Because to do that, you’d have to A) rely on something other than propaganda and B) Recognize that China hasn’t entirely eliminated hunger, much less deaths from starvation. Although they have made great progress in reducing the numbers since their series of famines. You also ignored that the Soviet Union didn’t experience famine because they relied on foreign aid - food aid - for a number of years. So that helped keep their people fed: Food given freely by capitalist pigs who deserve to be murdered for their mere existence in a more successful economy.
As for the great purge, it was followed by years of lesser purges.
The idea that the west does not change courses or look at past programs as a mistake is obviously quite invalid, so there was no point in even mentioning it. But since you cling to that idea, great. Obviously we’ve changed our minds on some things, as the Trail of Tears is now seen as wrong, as is the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Slavery and Jim Crow fall into those categories as well. The War on Drugs is also seen as a failure, despite the fact that it totters on for now.
I don’t watch John Oliver, moron. There is no nuance in this discussion because you are clearly incapable of it.
You are right about one thing: My horror over the deaths caused by communism, including the killing of kulaks, is why I am not a communist. Your gleeful appreciation of the righteousness of democide under communism doesn’t make you a communist. It makes you deeply disturbed individual who is incapable of empathy. It likely points to sociopathy, or some other element of the dark triad, with the political beliefs adopted as a fig leaf to cover your antisocial tendencies.
I don’t expect a response.